What factors explain the number of physical therapy treatment sessions in patients referred with low back pain; a multilevel analysis

BACKGROUND: It is well-known that the number of physical therapy treatment sessions varies over treatment episodes. Information is lacking, however, on the source and explanation of the variation. The purposes of the current study are: 1) to determine how the variance in the number of physical therapy treatment sessions in patients with non-specific low back pain (LBP) in the Netherlands is distributed over patient level, therapist level and practice level; and 2) to determine the factors that explain the variance. METHODS: Data were used from a national registration network on physical therapy. Our database contained information on 1,733 patients referred with LBP, treated by 97 therapists working in 41 practices. The variation in the number of treatment sessions was investigated by means of multilevel regression analyses. RESULTS: Eighty-eight per cent of the variation in the number of treatment sessions for patients with LBP is located at patient level and seven per cent is located at practice level. It was possible to explain thirteen per cent of all variance. The duration of the complaint, prior therapy, and the patients' age and gender in particular are related to the number of physical therapy treatment sessions. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the number of physical therapy treatment sessions in patients with LBP mainly depends on patient characteristics. More variation needs to be explained, however, to improve the transparency of care. Future research should examine the contribution of psychosocial factors, baseline disability, and the ability to learn motor behavior as possible factors in the variation in treatment sessions

Using Optimal Test Assembly Methods for Shortening Patientâ Reported Outcome Measures: Development and Validation of the Cochin Hand Function Scaleâ 6: A Scleroderma Patientâ Centered Intervention Network Cohort Study

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/134498/1/acr22893_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/134498/2/acr22893.pd

Comparing patient characteristics and treatment processes in patients receiving physical therapy in the United States, Israel and the Netherlands. Cross sectional analyses of data from three clinical databases

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many assume that outcomes from physical therapy research in one country can be generalized to other countries. However, no well designed studies comparing outcomes among countries have been conducted. In this exploratory study, our goal was to compare patient demographics and treatment processes in outpatient physical therapy practice in the United States, Israel and the Netherlands.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Cross-sectional data from three different clinical databases were examined. Data were selected for patients aged 18 years and older and started an episode of outpatient therapy between January 1^st2005 and December 31^st2005. Results are based on data from approximately 63,000 patients from the United States, 100,000 from Israel and 12,000 from the Netherlands.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Age, gender and the body part treated were similar in the three countries. Differences existed in episode duration of the health problem, with more patients with chronic complaints treated in the United States and Israel compared to the Netherlands. In the United States and Israel, physical agents and mechanical modalities were applied more often than in the Netherlands. The mean number of visits per treatment episode, adjusted for age, gender, and episode duration, varied from 8 in Israel to 11 in the United States and the Netherlands.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The current study showed that clinical databases can be used for comparing patient demographic characteristics and for identifying similarities and differences among countries in physical therapy practice. However, terminology used to describe treatment processes and classify patients was different among databases. More standardisation is required to enable more detailed comparisons. Nevertheless the differences found in number of treatment visits per episode imply that one has to be careful to generalize outcomes from physical therapy research from one country to another.</p

How do patients with systemic sclerosis experience currently provided healthcare and how should we measure its quality?

OBJECTIVES: To gain insight into SSc patients' perspective on quality of care and to survey their preferred quality indicators. METHODS: An online questionnaire about healthcare setting, perceived quality of care (CQ index) and quality indicators, was sent to 2093 patients from 13 Dutch hospitals. RESULTS: Six hundred and fifty patients (mean age 59 years, 75% women, 32% limited cutaneous SSc, 20% diffuse cutaneous SSc) completed the questionnaire. Mean time to diagnosis was 4.3 years (s.d. 6.9) and was longer in women compared with men (4.8 (s.d. 7.3) vs 2.5 (s.d. 5.0) years). Treatment took place in a SSc expert centre for 58%, regional centre for 29% or in both for 39% of patients. Thirteen percent of patients was not aware of whether their hospital was specialized in SSc. The perceived quality of care was rated with a mean score of 3.2 (s.d. 0.5) (range 1.0-4.0). There were no relevant differences between expert and regional centres. The three prioritized process indicators were: good patient-physician interaction (80%), structural multidisciplinary collaboration (46%) and receiving treatment according to SSc guidelines (44%). Absence of disease progression (66%), organ involvement (33%) and digital ulcers (27%) were the three highest rated outcome indicators. CONCLUSION: The perceived quality of care evaluated in our study was fair to good. No differences between expert and regional centres were observed. Our prioritized process and outcome indicators can be added to indicators suggested by SSc experts in earlier studies and can be used to evaluate the quality of care in SSc

New directions for patient-centred care in scleroderma : the Scleroderma Patient-centred Intervention Network (SPIN)

Systemic sclerosis (SSc), or scleroderma, is a chronic multisystem autoimmune disorder characterised by thickening and fibrosis of the skin and by the involvement of internal organs such as the lungs, kidneys, gastrointestinal tract, and heart. Because there is no cure, feasibly-implemented and easily accessible evidence-based interventions to improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are needed. Due to a lack of evidence, however, specific recommendations have not been made regarding non-pharmacological interventions (e.g. behavioural/psychological, educational, physical/occupational therapy) to improve HRQoL in SSc. The Scleroderma Patient-centred Intervention Network (SPIN) was recently organised to address this gap. SPIN is comprised of patient representatives, clinicians, and researchers from Canada, the USA, and Europe. The goal of SPIN, as described in this article, is to develop, test, and disseminate a set of accessible interventions designed to complement standard care in order to improve HRQoL outcomes in SSc.The initial organisational meeting for SPIN was funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Meetings, Planning, and Dissemination grant to B.D. Thombs (KPE-109130), Sclerodermie Quebec, and the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research of the Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec. SPIN receives finding support from the Sclemderma Society of Ontario, the Scleroderma Society of Canada, and Sclerodermie Quebec. B.D. Thombs and M. Hudson are supported by New Investigator awards from the CIHR, and Etablissement de Jeunes Chercheurs awards from the Fonds de la Recherche en Sante Quebec (FRSQ). M. Baron is the director of the Canadian Scleroderma Research Group, which receives grant folding from the CIHR, the Scleroderma Society of Canada and its provincial chapters, Scleroderma Society of Ontario, Sclerodermie Quebec, and the Ontario Arthritis Society, and educational grants from Actelion Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer. M.D. Mayes and S. Assassi are supported by the NIH/NIAMS Scleroderma Center of Research Translation grant no. P50-AR054144. S.J. Motivala is supported by an NIH career development grant (K23 AG027860) and the UCLA Cousins Center for Psychoneuroimmunology. D. Khanna is supported by a NIH/NIAMS K23 AR053858-04) and NIH/NIAMS U01 AR057936A, the National Institutes of Health through the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research Grant (AR052177), and has served as a consultant or on speakers bureau for Actelion, BMS, Gilead, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics

EULAR recommendations for the non-pharmacological management of systemic lupus erythematosus and systemic sclerosis

Objective To develop evidence-based recommendations for the non-pharmacological management of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and systemic sclerosis (SSc). Methods A task force comprising 7 rheumatologists, 15 other healthcare professionals and 3 patients was established. Following a systematic literature review performed to inform the recommendations, statements were formulated, discussed during online meetings and graded based on risk of bias assessment, level of evidence (LoE) and strength of recommendation (SoR; scale AD , A comprising consistent LoE 1 studies, D comprising LoE 4 or inconsistent studies), following the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology standard operating procedure. Level of agreement (LoA; scale 0-10, 0 denoting complete disagreement, 10 denoting complete agreement) was determined for each statement through online voting. Results Four overarching principles and 12 recommendations were developed. These concerned common and disease-specific aspects of non-pharmacological management. SoR ranged from A to D. The mean LoA with the overarching principles and recommendations ranged from 8.4 to 9.7. Briefly, non-pharmacological management of SLE and SSc should be tailored, person-centred and participatory. It is not intended to preclude but rather complement pharmacotherapy. Patients should be offered education and support for physical exercise, smoking cessation and avoidance of cold exposure. Photoprotection and psychosocial interventions are important for SLE patients, while mouth and hand exercises are important in SSc. Conclusions The recommendations will guide healthcare professionals and patients towards a holistic and personalised management of SLE and SSc. Research and educational agendas were developed to address needs towards a higher evidence level, enhancement of clinician-patient communication and improved outcomes

The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) Cohort : protocol for a cohort multiple randomised controlled trial (cmRCT) design to support trials of psychosocial and rehabilitation interventions in a rare disease context

Introduction: Psychosocial and rehabilitation interventions are increasingly used to attenuate disability and improve health-related quality of life (HRQL) in chronic diseases, but are typically not available for patients with rare diseases. Conducting rigorous, adequately powered trials of these interventions for patients with rare diseases is difficult. The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) is an international collaboration of patient organisations, clinicians and researchers. The aim of SPIN is to develop a research infrastructure to test accessible, low-cost self-guided online interventions to reduce disability and improve HRQL for people living with the rare disease systemic sclerosis (SSc or scleroderma). Once tested, effective interventions will be made accessible through patient organisations partnering with SPIN. Methods and analysis: SPIN will employ the cohort multiple randomised controlled trial (cmRCT) design, in which patients consent to participate in a cohort for ongoing data collection. The aim is to recruit 1500– 2000 patients from centres across the world within a period of 5 years (2013–2018). Eligible participants are persons ≥18 years of age with a diagnosis of SSc. In addition to baseline medical data, participants will complete patient-reported outcome measures every 3 months. Upon enrolment in the cohort, patients will consent to be contacted in the future to participate in intervention research and to allow their data to be used for comparison purposes for interventions tested with other cohort participants. Once nterventions are developed, patients from the cohort will be randomly selected and offered interventions as part of pragmatic RCTs. Outcomes from patients offered interventions will be compared with outcomes from trial-eligible patients who are not offered the interventions. Ethics and dissemination: The use of the cmRCT design, the development of self-guided online interventions and partnerships with patient organisations will allow SPIN to develop, rigourously test and effectively disseminate psychosocial and rehabilitation interventions for people with SSc.(undefined

Therapeutic Validity and Effectiveness of Preoperative Exercise on Functional Recovery after Joint Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Our aim was to develop a rating scale to assess the therapeutic validity of therapeutic exercise programmes. By use of this rating scale we investigated the therapeutic validity of therapeutic exercise in patients awaiting primary total joint replacement (TJR). Finally, we studied the association between therapeutic validity of preoperative therapeutic exercise and its effectiveness in terms of postoperative functional recovery. Methods: (Quasi) randomised clinical trials on preoperative therapeutic exercise in adults awaiting TJR on postoperative recovery of functioning within three months after surgery were identified through database and reference screening. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias and therapeutic validity. Therapeutic validity of the interventions was assessed with a nine-itemed, expert-based rating scale (scores range from 0 to 9; score ≥6 reflecting therapeutic validity), developed in a four-round Delphi study. Effects were pooled using a random-effects model and meta-regression was used to study the influence of therapeutic validity. Results: Of the 7,492 articles retrieved, 12 studies (737 patients) were included. None of the included studies demonstrated therapeutic validity and two demonstrated low risk of bias. Therapeutic exercise was not associated with 1) observed functional recovery during the hospital stay (Standardised Mean Difference [SMD]: −1.19; 95%-confidence interval [CI], −2.46 to 0.08); 2) observed recovery within three months of surgery (SMD: −0.15; 95%-CI, −0.42 to 0.12); and 3) self-reported recovery within three months of surgery (SMD −0.07; 95%-CI, −0.35 to 0.21) compared with control participants. Meta-regression showed no statistically significant relationship between therapeutic validity and pooled-effects. Conclusion: Preoperative therapeutic exercise for TJR did not demonstrate beneficial effects on postoperative functional recovery. However, poor therapeutic validity of the therapeutic exercise programmes may have hampered potentially beneficial effects, since none of the studies met the predetermined quality criteria. Future review studies on therapeutic exercise should address therapeutic validity. (aut.ref.

Multi-ancestry GWAS of the electrocardiographic PR interval identifies 202 loci underlying cardiac conduction

The electrocardiographic PR interval reflects atrioventricular conduction, and is associated with conduction abnormalities, pacemaker implantation, atrial fibrillation (AF), and cardiovascular mortality. Here we report a multi-ancestry (N=293,051) genome-wide association meta-analysis for the PR interval, discovering 202 loci of which 141 have not previously been reported. Variants at identified loci increase the percentage of heritability explained, from 33.5% to 62.6%. We observe enrichment for cardiac muscle developmental/contractile and cytoskeletal genes, highlighting key regulation processes for atrioventricular conduction. Additionally, 8 loci not previously reported harbor genes underlying inherited arrhythmic syndromes and/or cardiomyopathies suggesting a role for these genes in cardiovascular pathology in the general population. We show that polygenic predisposition to PR interval duration is an endophenotype for cardiovascular disease, including distal conduction disease, AF, and atrioventricular pre-excitation. These findings advance our understanding of the polygenic basis of cardiac conduction, and the genetic relationship between PR interval duration and cardiovascular disease. On the electrocardiogram, the PR interval reflects conduction from the atria to ventricles and also serves as risk indicator of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Here, the authors perform genome-wide meta-analyses for PR interval in multiple ancestries and identify 141 previously unreported genetic loci.Peer reviewe

Genetic insights into resting heart rate and its role in cardiovascular disease

Resting heart rate is associated with cardiovascular diseases and mortality in observational and Mendelian randomization studies. The aims of this study are to extend the number of resting heart rate associated genetic variants and to obtain further insights in resting heart rate biology and its clinical consequences. A genome-wide meta-analysis of 100 studies in up to 835,465 individuals reveals 493 independent genetic variants in 352 loci, including 68 genetic variants outside previously identified resting heart rate associated loci. We prioritize 670 genes and in silico annotations point to their enrichment in cardiomyocytes and provide insights in their ECG signature. Two-sample Mendelian randomization analyses indicate that higher genetically predicted resting heart rate increases risk of dilated cardiomyopathy, but decreases risk of developing atrial fibrillation, ischemic stroke, and cardio-embolic stroke. We do not find evidence for a linear or non-linear genetic association between resting heart rate and all-cause mortality in contrast to our previous Mendelian randomization study. Systematic alteration of key differences between the current and previous Mendelian randomization study indicates that the most likely cause of the discrepancy between these studies arises from false positive findings in previous one-sample MR analyses caused by weak-instrument bias at lower P-value thresholds. The results extend our understanding of resting heart rate biology and give additional insights in its role in cardiovascular disease development